Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
I did not know that plain 'Chianti' (not Classico, Rufina, etc.) was
made as 'Riserva'. I picked up a bottle of "Via Firenze" (dal 1826) Riserva for $10. Have not opened yet, so no opinion on its quality. "C. Campagna Gello" is listed as 'bottler'. Have never heard of them. 12.5% alcohol. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
UC wrote:
> I did not know that plain 'Chianti' (not Classico, Rufina, etc.) was > made as 'Riserva'. I picked up a bottle of "Via Firenze" (dal 1826) > Riserva for $10. Have not opened yet, so no opinion on its quality. > "C. Campagna Gello" is listed as 'bottler'. Have never heard of them. > 12.5% alcohol. I have never heard of them. If you wish to have a good, although not typical, Chianti Riserva (just Chianti, not CC) you might consider this one: http://www.corzanoepaterno.it/vino_d...20Borri%202001 That winery is almost on the border of the Chianti Classico production area. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister > wrote:
> I have never heard of them. If you wish to have a good, although > not typical, Chianti Riserva (just Chianti, not CC) you might > consider this one: > > http://www.corzanoepaterno.it/vino_d...no=I%20Tre%20B > orri%202001 They make phantastic cheese too, btw. Been there a year ago, Aljosha Goldschmidt (Swiss of Dutch descendance, iirc) and his wife (British brought up in Venice) are some of the most charming hosts I ever met. And their wine is pretty damn good, too! M. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
Michael Pronay wrote:
> They make phantastic cheese too, btw. True. Those visiting there during springtime should try their "Ricotta" cheese. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
On Mar 3, 8:57 am, der-pizzameister >
wrote: > UC wrote: > > I did not know that plain 'Chianti' (not Classico, Rufina, etc.) was > > made as 'Riserva'. I picked up a bottle of "Via Firenze" (dal 1826) > > Riserva for $10. Have not opened yet, so no opinion on its quality. > > "C. Campagna Gello" is listed as 'bottler'. Have never heard of them. > > 12.5% alcohol. > > I have never heard of them. If you wish to have a good, although not > typical, Chianti Riserva (just Chianti, not CC) you might consider this > one: > > http://www.corzanoepaterno.it/vino_d...%20Tre%20Borri... > > That winery is almost on the border of the Chianti Classico production area. So far, I'm unimpressed with this wine. I had it cold, though (it was in my car overnight), so I'll see tonight. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
UC wrote:
> So far, I'm unimpressed with this wine. I had it cold, though (it was > in my car overnight), so I'll see tonight. If you refer to "Via Firenze" I would not have much expectations. I have never heard about them (I live in Tuscany) and - frankly speaking - $10 in the US market seems a low price for a good Chianti Riserva. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
On Mar 5, 1:43 pm, der-pizzameister >
wrote: > UC wrote: > > So far, I'm unimpressed with this wine. I had it cold, though (it was > > in my car overnight), so I'll see tonight. > > If you refer to "Via Firenze" I would not have much expectations. I have > never heard about them (I live in Tuscany) and - frankly speaking - $10 in > the US market seems a low price for a good Chianti Riserva. Yes, I've had much better $10-13 wines from south, Sardinia, and Sicily. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
On Mar 5, 2:40 pm, "UC" > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:43 pm, der-pizzameister > > wrote: > > > UC wrote: > > > So far, I'm unimpressed with this wine. I had it cold, though (it was > > > in my car overnight), so I'll see tonight. > > > If you refer to "Via Firenze" I would not have much expectations. I have > > never heard about them (I live in Tuscany) and - frankly speaking - $10 in > > the US market seems a low price for a good Chianti Riserva. > > Yes, I've had much better $10-13 wines from south, Sardinia, and > Sicily. The wine is simply not very good. I told the clerk not to order any more of it. He said someone really liked it and ordered a case. What can I say? I'm sure I didn't get a 'bad' bottle, because I have had bad bottles before. This wine simply didn't have much flavor, despite its intense color. Bad bottles taste 'off', and this wine didn't tatse off. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister wrote:
> ... If you wish to have a good, although not > typical, Chianti Riserva (just Chianti, not CC) you might consider this > one: > > http://www.corzanoepaterno.it/vino_d...20Borri%202001 > > That winery is almost on the border of the Chianti Classico production area. By the way of this remark about production areas of wines branded as Chianti, or Chianti Classico, ecc., and since there has been some discussion a few weeks ago about the meaning of "Chianti" (i.e. as a geographical in the first place, rather than just a wine denomination), I think it might be found interesting, at least by some of you, the following link to a Wikipedia page displaying a very handy map which compares all the different "Chianti-something" areas: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagin...chianti_it.jpg The blue-striped area is what corresponds to the actual Chianti _district_, i.e. to the _geographical_ area known as Chianti, administratively known as "Lega del Chianti" from the end of 13th century to the end of 18th century and whose icon was a black rooster, the so called "gallo nero". Most notably at the beginning of the 90s Chianti Classico people were stopped by the Gallo bros from displaying on their bottles sold on the American market such collective brand name, and they also changed the name of the Consorzio, til that time named Consorzio del Gallo Nero. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
filippo wrote:
> I think it might be found interesting, at least by some of you, the > following link to a Wikipedia page displaying a very handy map > which compares all the different "Chianti-something" areas: > > http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagin...chianti_it.jpg Thanks for the interesting contribution. This map must be pretty unique in the world collection of "Chianti wine" maps: honestly I do not see the point of showing the territory of Castellina, Radda and Gaiole in blue, while the rest of the Chianti Classico area is depicted in red. This map is about Chianti subzones (I beg pardon for my poor English), so actually I find at least superfluous to make a distinction between the named three municipalities and the rest of the Chianti Classico area. A map illustrating the different production areas of Chianti wines should in first place provide a clear indication of the *current* boundaries of the different subzones. Using the "blue" pencil for Castellina, Radda, and Gaiole at most might serve an aspect of historical relevance. At any rate consumers and wine lovers have to understand that the Chianti Classico production area is -for what concernes wine- *one* without any formal distinction between its internal territories. I would find preferable not to mix all in a map strict regulations about wine producing areas with other things which matters to history. > The blue-striped area is what corresponds to the actual Chianti > _district_, i.e. to the _geographical_ area known as Chianti, > administratively known as "Lega del Chianti" from the end of 13th > century to the end of 18th century As for what concerns the expression "Chianti district" I guess that sooner or later the only acceptable definition will refer to the "Distretto Rurale del Chianti" which is an economic and territorial system and -guess what- once again is not limited to Castellina, Radda and Gaiole. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister wrote:
> filippo wrote: > >> I think it might be found interesting, at least by some of you, the >> following link to a Wikipedia page displaying a very handy map >> which compares all the different "Chianti-something" areas: >> >> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagin...chianti_it.jpg > > Thanks for the interesting contribution. > This map must be pretty unique in the world collection of "Chianti wine" > maps: honestly I do not see the point of showing the territory of > Castellina, Radda and Gaiole in blue, while the rest of the Chianti Classico > area is depicted in red. You know... when talking about a wine named after a geographical area, it is always worth, I believe, showing which is the actual area and which is the extended area where ONE product is allowed to be branded, that was done in recent years. ;-) > This map is about Chianti subzones (I beg pardon for my poor English), Chianti as a wine does not mean anything but this tautology: wine named Chianti is the wine named Chianti according to regulations. Period. There is little to do with the Chianti area, and there is no such thing as a typical style of winemaking with that name. Grape varieties also seem to be pretty variable over the years. It is just an arbitrary container to market red wine from the central part of Tuscany. Could you give any explanations about the whys of those borders displayed in the above mentioned map? Why such places are within the production areas and such other places are not? Why are several sangiovese wines branded as IGT Toscana considered to be way more representative of the Chianti terroir than many DOCG Chianti Classico ones? > so actually I find at least superfluous to make a distinction between the > named three municipalities and the rest of the Chianti Classico area. The distinction is just the one I made here above: the three municipalities are the Chianti area. The rest is the production area (by law) of a wine which is allowed to be branded as Chianti-something. You may find it superflous...;-) I find it a pretty substancial distinction. > A map illustrating the different production areas of Chianti wines should in > first place provide a clear indication of the *current* boundaries of the > different subzones. And so does that map, as you can see. > Using the "blue" pencil for Castellina, Radda, and > Gaiole at most might serve an aspect of historical relevance. History will never be wiped out. A territory IS eminently history. Particularly more than five centuries of political, military, social history, with respect to what else? The commercial ups and downs of a mere one single product in the last few decades? > At any rate consumers and wine lovers have to understand that the Chianti > Classico production area is -for what concernes wine- *one* without any > formal distinction between its internal territories. As far as pedology (soil) and climate is concerned, quite the opposite is true: the "Chianti Classico" production area is a rather etherogeneous collection of different terroirs. If you look at the geologic map, by the way, you can easily spot a glob of substancially homogeneous character, corresponding to the historical Chianti area. If you look at the landscape (which is a tell tale sign, when it comes to agricultural products), nobody with a sufficient actual knowledge of the area would deny that the Chianti area is quite different from the Castelnuovo Berardenga area, and from the San Casciano val di Pesa or Barberino and Tavarnelle val di Pesa surroundings. Who cares about the lack of "formal" distinction, resulting from a crazy regulation whose purpose is exactly that: expanding the scope of "Chianti" in order to exploit this name and market more wine from a larger area? > I would find > preferable not to mix all in a map strict regulations about wine producing > areas with other things which matters to history. The blue etched area in that map still refers to wine, although with an historical approach in mind: it purports to be the area subject to the earliest known wine regulation dealing with a wine marketed as "Chianti", the edict of 1716. >> The blue-striped area is what corresponds to the actual Chianti >> _district_, i.e. to the _geographical_ area known as Chianti, >> administratively known as "Lega del Chianti" from the end of 13th >> century to the end of 18th century > > As for what concerns the expression "Chianti district" I guess that sooner > or later the only acceptable definition will refer to the "Distretto Rurale > del Chianti" which is an economic and territorial system and -guess what- > once again is not limited to Castellina, Radda and Gaiole. That "distretto rurale" is far from being set and ruled, at the moment. They did not find any agreement, and I am not surprised. What is more, if you read the "piano di indirizzo territoriale" of Regione Toscana, you would easily realise that an agreement on that is not in sight yet. Not surprisingly again, if you consider the recent EU regulation concerning the use of geographical designations in branding typical products (Reg CE n.510/2006 of 20 March 2006), which although not dealing with wine products, yet is setting general principles that are pretty strict and conflicting with this slacky misuse of the name Chianti in branding wines :-/ |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
Dear Filippo,
I am not going to discuss most of the points from your post simply because I think that an extensive discussion about the Chianti region has already appeared on afw and probably went much beyond the scope of this group. I only find that the whole thing would have been a bit more amusing if there was an adequate counterpart to oppose your thesis. Anyway if you wished to discuss those points my email address is (replace "3" with "e"): dani3l3martini (at) gmx (d0t) n3t Here I only wish to point out that: In my reply to UC I clearly spoke of Chianti Classico production area. The map which url you have posted is not clear for several reasons. Due to the unhappy choice of colours some part of the generic Chianti area in the province of Arezzo can easily be confused with the subzone named "Chianti Colli Senesi" (both are depicted in yellow). This map is a unique artwork most likely from a castellinese, raddese or gaiolese (*) folk (or at least by someone whose primary intent was to publish a content suggesting a supposed preeminence of one part over the rest of the Chianti Classico production area). (*) italian names for citizens from three municipalities within the Chianti Classico production area. I have never seen a map of that kind in books, magazines, fliers, etc. Make a google image search and you will find: -maps of the Chianti production area with the *whole* Chianti Classico zone in the same colour. Like this one (the tiny Montespertoli area has not been taken into account, probably that one is an old map): http://www.italyandwine.net/mappe/chianti.gif -maps of the Chianti Classico subzone with each municipality territory displayed in its own colour. A sample he http://tinyurl.com/39ln4s That artwork submitted to wikipedia is really innovative because it clearly put a focus on a subset of the territory of the Chianti Classico production area. By the way, it is worth to recall that according to the Chianti Classico wine regulations such subset simply does not exist as a separate entity. And since 1932 -that is almost eighty years ago- wine from San Polo in Chianti (yes I know that pronunciating that toponym might have urticating effects on some people's ears ;-) ) can be bottled as Chianti Classico just like wine from the grapes growing under the Brolio Castle walls. Take the name of the file: "Sottozone chianti it.jpg" That means that the purpose of the image should be to illustrate the boundaries of the Chianti and Chianti Classico denominations as well as the Chianti denomination subzones. That is not exactly what such a map does. Indeed if you talk about Chianti subzones you would just have to stick to the different production zones as they were defined in the disciplinary regulations published a few decades ago (let's not mix a matter subject to present time regulations and laws with historical documents from the eighteenth century) Wine made in the eighteenth century has nothing to share with the present time Chianti and Chianti Classico denominations (beside of course the word "Chianti"). So, once again, why putting such stuff from the ancient times when talking about "XX-th century" Chianti subzones? Chianti subzones are a matter of strict wine regulations - or call it bureaucracy if you hate those Chianti wine fellows and the way the two denominations were created - but, please, make things less puzzling than they actually are and avoid the use of a superfluous blue etching when illustrating Chianti subzones. I am not saying that the map is presenting false information. The blue area inside the red one has an historical meaning. The map is just presenting a mix of true things. Which not always lead to a good outcome. Kind regards. Daniele |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister wrote:
> I only find that the whole thing would have been a bit more amusing if > there was an adequate counterpart to oppose your thesis. Forgot to say that I am not going to serve in the role because I am not a fierce supporter of thesis which conflict with yours. Beside from that I do not live within the Chianti area (the Chianti area according to your personal definition), nor within the extended one, nor even within the hyper-extended one and I think that it is better to leave to people born there the whole controversy about the geography of Chianti. It's more fun. It is so amusing when I visit Radda or Gaiole and happen to listen to retired old men who blame San Casciano Val di Pesa while they are sitting at a table and playing cards. Localism! woooh :-D what would be Italy without that? |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister wrote:
> but, please, make things less puzzling than they actually I meant to write this: "please do not make things more puzzling than they actually are" |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister wrote:
> Localism! woooh :-D what would be Italy without that? > Liebe Pizzameister, thanks for your interesting remarks (in the other post) about that artwork (which is not a meisterwerk of mine, I have to say). Just an objection he this point about Chianti is not (or it does not need to be just) a point of localism. It is a point of truthfulness. Of stolen identity. I believe it is much more general issue than just a localistic tantrum. Thanks again, F |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
filippo wrote:
> thanks for your interesting remarks (in the other post) about that > artwork (which is not a meisterwerk of mine, I have to say). Never said that :-) I know that your ideas about the Chianti region are shared by a number of people. I know that there are even books about this Chianti quarrel. Take this one with a self explanatory title: http://www.polistampa.com/asp/sl.asp?id=269 The author is the president of the Gaiole touristic information office. May be I'll buy it. > Just an objection he this point about Chianti is not (or it does not > need to be just) a point of localism. It is a point of truthfulness. > Of stolen identity. I believe it is much more general issue than just > a localistic tantrum. Objection accepted. But I also think that a little hint of campanilism would not totally disqualify some ideas about the Chianti region. At any rate I love the Chianti region both "the one you mean" and the "extended one". And would like to see your parts in the province of Siena not affected by the urban development that ruined some parts in the province of Florence. Good luck. Daniele |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister wrote:
> Objection accepted. But I also think that a little hint of campanilism awhh macaronic English... I meant localism! |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
On 11 Mar, 20:39, der-pizzameister >
wrote: > filippo wrote: > > thanks for your interesting remarks (in the other post) about that > > artwork (which is not a meisterwerk of mine, I have to say). > > Never said that :-) I know that your ideas about the Chianti region are > shared by a number of people. True. But chiantigiani people seem to be very shy when it comes to the defence of their identity and history. They lack self confidence. Hopefully the publication on wikipedia of that map is the sign of new trend. > I know that there are even books about this > Chianti quarrel. Take this one with a self explanatory title: > > http://www.polistampa.com/asp/sl.asp?id=269 > > The author is the president of the Gaiole touristic information office. May > be I'll buy it. ;-)) Of course I know both this title and Enzo very well. I definitely recommend this book, although I now says that he would write it in an entirely different manner. It was written as a hot reply in the aftermath of the 1997 meeting in Pontignano where the eight (!) mayors whose municipalities are wholly or partly included within the borders of the "Chianti Classico" production area, signed an agreement, the infamous "Pontignano pact". > > Just an objection he this point about Chianti is not (or it does not > > need to be just) a point of localism. It is a point of truthfulness. > > Of stolen identity. I believe it is much more general issue than just > > a localistic tantrum. > > Objection accepted. But I also think that a little hint of campanilism would > not totally disqualify some ideas about the Chianti region. Of course not. But at stake here are both this point of stolen identity AND the effective scam taking place and targeting the international consumer. > At any rate I love the Chianti region both "the one you mean" and > the "extended one". And would like to see your parts in the province of > Siena not affected by the urban development that ruined some parts in the > province of Florence. Good luck. That is also the point! As long as the Chianti could remained confined to the real thing, no doubt whatsoever could arise about its socioeconomic "mission": it is a rural area whose landscape-related and touristic peculiarities are undeniable. Not so if we included the mixed industrial areas of the NW and W part of the Chianti Classico production area. Only a crystal clear relation with its history and origin can guarantee the possibility of an environmental and landscape protection of that area. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister :
> Here I only wish to point out that: > > In my reply to UC I clearly spoke of Chianti Classico production area. > > The map which url you have posted is not clear for several reasons. > > Due to the unhappy choice of colours some part of the generic Chianti area > in the province of Arezzo can easily be confused with the subzone > named "Chianti Colli Senesi" (both are depicted in yellow). Absolutely true. Good point. It should be emended. And thanks to the wikipedia nature, it could ;-) > > This map is a unique artwork most likely from a castellinese, raddese or > gaiolese (*) folk (or at least by someone whose primary intent was to > publish a content suggesting a supposed preeminence of one part over the > rest of the Chianti Classico production area). > > (*) italian names for citizens from three municipalities within the Chianti > Classico production area. Most likely. But please note that what the caption to the etched area points out, is the extend of the supposedly earliest attempt at drawing boundaries for a production area of the _wine_ branded as Chianti, as in the edict of 1716 by Cosimo III de' Medici. It must be said that: 1) that edict is by no means "nearly coincident" with the present days boundaries of the Chianti Classico production area, as the Consorzio used to claim (without explicitly quoting that edict, guess why :-D), although now the text on their web site seems to have been changed (www.chianticlassico.com). 2)That edict attempted to define a production area for the Chianti wine, in a very awkward manner, by stating that the Chianti area was constiting of...the Chianti plus something else, of course without explicitly naming the real Chianti, part of that odd summation. For those able to understand this oldish italian: " Per il Chianti e' restato determinato sia: dallo Spedaluzzo fino a Greve, di li' a Panzano con tutta la Potesteria di Radda, che contiene tre terzi, cioe' Radda, Gajole e Castellina, arrivando fino al confine dello Stato di Siena, &c..." This wording IS the proof that the very edict of 1716 was not in good faith, but instead the first instance of unduly extension of the Chianti name for the sake of the economic interest of the florentine wine sellers guild. In fact, it was the very first documented theft of Chianti identity! The map maybe fails to show the tiny strip added to the Chianti in that occasion, i.e. the road from Radda to Spedaluzzo, via Greve. > > I have never seen a map of that kind in books, magazines, fliers, etc. Of course not! That is wahy I think that the publication of this map on Wikipedia is a very remarkable fact indeed! Of course, where on earth if not on Wikipedia could such a map find its way? > Make a google image search and you will find: > > -maps of the Chianti production area with the *whole* Chianti Classico zone > in the same colour. Like this one (the tiny Montespertoli area has not been > taken into account, probably that one is an old map):http://www.italyandwine.net/mappe/chianti.gif I do not think that Montespertoli is part of the Chianti CLASSICO production area. Hopefully at least, their arrogance did not go this far! > > -maps of the Chianti Classico subzone with each municipality territory > displayed in its own colour. A sample hehttp://tinyurl.com/39ln4s Which is a very instructive map indeed. Thanks for posting the link. Everybody can see that the Chianti Classico itself is a HUGE extension of the Chianti area, it is actually an effective DOUBLING of it. And if instead of the surface we look at the vineyard surface, the results are even more striking. Let alone the data of the grapes production.... And please note that in terms of political-administrative power, what used to be a three municipalities district (three mayors) has now been transformed into an eight (!) municipalities entity: the loss of weight for the poor three chiantisan mayors is absolutely obvious! > > That artwork submitted to wikipedia is really innovative because it clearly > put a focus on a subset of the territory of the Chianti Classico production > area. By the way, it is worth to recall that according to the Chianti > Classico wine regulations such subset simply does not exist as a separate > entity. Exactly. The regulations, ideed aim at simply substituting one piece of reality with an invention. The effects of this attempt are becoming more and more evident: people (mainly tourists) arriving in San Casciano val di Pesa, or in Barberino val d'Elsa, soo more closely connected to Florence and Pisa and their international airports, are now induced to believe that they are in the Chianti area. Why on earth should they drive any further, on those bloody dirty (and bendy!) roads leading to Radda, Castellina, Gaiole? What is there that we (tourists) cannot find here (in SanCAsciano etc)? You see? It is not a localistic tantrum. A real theft of name, of indentiy, of history.. and yes!.. of economy as well, is taking place! DO NOT, please, DO NOT endorse such an outrage. > And since 1932 -that is almost eighty years ago- wine from San Polo > in Chianti (yes I know that pronunciating that toponym might have > urticating effects on some people's ears ;-) ) It does indeed! ;-) Its real name, ever since, was San Polo ad Ema. In the Chianti one and only one San Polo has ever been, and it name has never been with the "in Chianti" suffix: San Polo in Rosso, which was the place of one of the "pievi" (hence "pivieri", a further subdivision of the "terzi" of Chianti, a religious one this time), that is of baptismal churches. >can be bottled as Chianti > Classico just like wine from the grapes growing under the Brolio Castle > walls. True concerning the wine. But only as late as in 1972 San Polo ad Ema got the legal right to append the "in Chianti" suffix to its name, as other small villages of the municipality of Greve. Yes, the so called (self-called, of course) "capital" of Chianti, Greve, owns this legal right only since 1972! After three unsuccessful attempts, and withstanding the fierce opposition by the three Chianti municipalities of Radda, Gaiole and Castellina. What a capital, indeed... > > Take the name of the file: "Sottozone chianti it.jpg" > That means that the purpose of the image should be to illustrate the > boundaries of the Chianti and Chianti Classico denominations as well as the > Chianti denomination subzones. That is not exactly what such a map does. > Indeed if you talk about Chianti subzones you would just have to stick to > the different production zones as they were defined in the disciplinary > regulations published a few decades ago (let's not mix a matter subject to > present time regulations and laws with historical documents from the > eighteenth century) I agree, that has been a mere addendum to the modern subzones. But, as I tried to explain earlier in this post, it is related with wine production boundaries, although (I admit) only from an historical point of view. > Wine made in the eighteenth century has nothing to share with the present > time Chianti and Chianti Classico denominations (beside of course the > word "Chianti"). Exactly. > So, once again, why putting such stuff from the ancient > times when talking about "XX-th century" Chianti subzones? Chianti subzones > are a matter of strict wine regulations - or call it bureaucracy if you > hate those Chianti wine fellows and the way the two denominations were > created - but, please, make things less puzzling than they actually are and > avoid the use of a superfluous blue etching when illustrating Chianti > subzones. You may be right, but please note that also the 1932 "Chianti" wine has very little resemblance with 2000 "Chianti" wine. The truth is, Chianti as a wine defining term has very little meaning. And that very little is entirely arbitrary and also ever changing. > I am not saying that the map is presenting false information. The blue area > inside the red one has an historical meaning. The map is just presenting a > mix of true things. Which not always lead to a good outcome. You may be right here too, although I believe that if this will have even a tiny chance of putting the healty germs of doubt into people's minds, if people (even just a tiny minority) around the world will start questioning why this theft took place, and challenging its legitimacy, THAT will be a very good outcome. Do big wine producing guys wish to be left alone with their business? Then please could they leave the Chianti name alone in the first place. Thank you for the very interesting discussion. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
filippo wrote:
[cut] > I do not think that Montespertoli is part of the Chianti CLASSICO > production area. > Hopefully at least, their arrogance did not go this far! Montespertoli is not part of the Chianti Classico area. Now some land of the municipaility of Montespertoli falls within the "Chianti Montespertoli" subzone, the rest I think is part of the "Chianti Colli Fiorentini" subzone. Would it be ever included in the Chianti Classico production area, and worse should the municipality name turn into "Montespertoli in Chianti" -but of course it won't ever happen- the town name would be furiously blamed from Badiaccia a Montemuro to Castellina Scalo, shortly later riots would arise from Piazza to S.Vincenti. Men, women... -and wild boars too- united in their Chianti rage against the evil lords of the Chianti Classico Consortium! :-D Seriously. You people from Gaiole, Radda and Castellina (or at least those of you who feel the thing is so crucial) won't ever gain the exclusivity of use of the word Chianti. It's simply a lost battle. Most people know that the Chianti area has to be identified with the Chianti Classico production area. That's how things are going and you do not have the numbers to change this. But there is *still* one thing you can do. Work on that which is feasible: as for what concerns wine I think that the three municipalities (as well as the other territories in the Chianti Classico area) would benefit from the introduction of subzones for the Chianti Classico denomination. That way each territory would have its identity outlined. It would also be a good thing for the consumer. Daniele |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister :
> filippo wrote: > > [cut] > > > I do not think that Montespertoli is part of the Chianti CLASSICO > > production area. > > Hopefully at least, their arrogance did not go this far! > > Montespertoli is not part of the Chianti Classico area. Now some land of the > municipaility of Montespertoli falls within the "Chianti Montespertoli" > subzone, the rest I think is part of the "Chianti Colli Fiorentini" > subzone. Would it be ever included in the Chianti Classico production area, > and worse should the municipality name turn into "Montespertoli in > Chianti" -but of course it won't ever happen- the town name would be > furiously blamed from Badiaccia a Montemuro to Castellina Scalo, shortly > later riots would arise from Piazza to S.Vincenti. Men, women... -and wild > boars too- united in their Chianti rage against the evil lords of the > Chianti Classico Consortium! :-D LOL > > Seriously. You people from Gaiole, Radda and Castellina (or at least those > of you who feel the thing is so crucial) won't ever gain the exclusivity of > use of the word Chianti. It's simply a lost battle. Most people know that > the Chianti area has to be identified with the Chianti Classico production > area. That's how things are going and you do not have the numbers to change > this. You may well be right (although things are always changing...who knows?). Nonetheless...we will NEVER surrender. Never. They will never get our silence. This does not mean that this lonely complaint will be our only course of action, though..>:-> > But there is *still* one thing you can do. Work on that which is feasible: > as for what concerns wine I think that the three municipalities (as well as > the other territories in the Chianti Classico area) would benefit from the > introduction of subzones for the Chianti Classico denomination. > That way each territory would have its identity outlined. It would also be a > good thing for the consumer. True. But even better (imo) would (will!) be the birth of private smaller-scale subdenominations. Private collective brands with a strong (and true!) territorial link. And linked to our historical name. We could also pursue the road of DeCo (municipal council denominations). Many possibilities are available. What is more, by aiming at the target's center (restoring the full historical truth), it is not so unlikely that we may have a chance of hitting at least the outer circle of it (getting the Tuscany-wide "Chianti" denomination stop to exist, and the sole "Chianti Classico" one survive, possibly redefined as plain Chianti). For sure, if do not even try, we will get nothing. Thanks for the solidarity, anyway. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
"filippo" > wrote:
> But chiantigiani people seem to be very shy when it comes > to the defence of their identity and history. They lack self > confidence. Hopefully the publication on wikipedia of that map > is the sign of new trend. OK then, lets have a "Chianti Superclassico" DOCG! M. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
Michael Pronay wrote:
> "filippo" > wrote: > >> But chiantigiani people seem to be very shy when it comes >> to the defence of their identity and history. They lack self >> confidence. Hopefully the publication on wikipedia of that map >> is the sign of new trend. > > OK then, lets have a "Chianti Superclassico" DOCG! ROTFL |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
Michael Pronay:
> "filippo" : > > But chiantigiani people seem to be very shy when it comes > > to the defence of their identity and history. They lack self > > confidence. Hopefully the publication on wikipedia of that map > > is the sign of new trend. > > OK then, lets have a "Chianti Superclassico" DOCG! :-) You see, Michael? Such is the mess they managed to produce: instead of leaving specifications like "classico" to mean what they should mean, i.e. a matter of style, they used them instead to mean what the other word was supposed to mean, that is: simply Chianti. If the Chianti area only was entitled to this name, then we could easily have a Classico (meaning a typical blend of sangiovese and other local varieties) and a modern one (meaning the blend of whatever so called "international" grape varieties one believe it to be suitable), with much better clarity for everybody and respect for the truth. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
On Mar 12, 8:36 am, "filippo" > wrote:
> der-pizzameister : > > > > > filippo wrote: > > > [cut] > > > > I do not think that Montespertoli is part of the Chianti CLASSICO > > > production area. > > > Hopefully at least, their arrogance did not go this far! > > > Montespertoli is not part of the Chianti Classico area. Now some land of the > > municipaility of Montespertoli falls within the "Chianti Montespertoli" > > subzone, the rest I think is part of the "Chianti Colli Fiorentini" > > subzone. Would it be ever included in the Chianti Classico production area, > > and worse should the municipality name turn into "Montespertoli in > > Chianti" -but of course it won't ever happen- the town name would be > > furiously blamed from Badiaccia a Montemuro to Castellina Scalo, shortly > > later riots would arise from Piazza to S.Vincenti. Men, women... -and wild > > boars too- united in their Chianti rage against the evil lords of the > > Chianti Classico Consortium! :-D > > LOL > > > > > Seriously. You people from Gaiole, Radda and Castellina (or at least those > > of you who feel the thing is so crucial) won't ever gain the exclusivity of > > use of the word Chianti. It's simply a lost battle. Most people know that > > the Chianti area has to be identified with the Chianti Classico production > > area. That's how things are going and you do not have the numbers to change > > this. > > You may well be right (although things are always changing...who > knows?). Nonetheless...we will NEVER surrender. Never. > They will never get our silence. > This does not mean that this lonely complaint will be our only course > of action, though..>:-> > > > But there is *still* one thing you can do. Work on that which is feasible: > > as for what concerns wine I think that the three municipalities (as well as > > the other territories in the Chianti Classico area) would benefit from the > > introduction of subzones for the Chianti Classico denomination. > > That way each territory would have its identity outlined. It would also be a > > good thing for the consumer. > > True. But even better (imo) would (will!) be the birth of private > smaller-scale subdenominations. Private collective brands with a > strong (and true!) territorial link. And linked to our historical > name. > We could also pursue the road of DeCo (municipal council > denominations). > Many possibilities are available. > What is more, by aiming at the target's center (restoring the full > historical truth), it is not so unlikely that we may have a chance of > hitting at least the outer circle of it (getting the Tuscany-wide > "Chianti" denomination stop to exist, and the sole "Chianti Classico" > one survive, possibly redefined as plain Chianti). > For sure, if do not even try, we will get nothing. > > Thanks for the solidarity, anyway. Don't you realize that many, if not most new wine drinkers, as well as many older ones, are buying wine by grape variety? Chardonnay, Cabernet, Shiraz, Pinot Noir, Merlot (cough, cough), Zinfandel are established as recognized 'brands', no matter where they are made. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
"filippo" > wrote:
> If the Chianti area only was entitled to this name, then we > could easily have a Classico (meaning a typical blend of > sangiovese and other local varieties) and a modern one (meaning > the blend of whatever so called "international" grape varieties > one believe it to be suitable), with much better clarity for > everybody and respect for the truth. Sorry to contradict you in in one point: The Chianti formula was a 19th century invention by Barone Ricasoli. The inclusion of white grapes in the formula certainly was *not* meant to provide the wine with the utmost quality possible. M. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
UC wrote:
> > Don't you realize that many, if not most new wine drinkers, as well as > many older ones, are buying wine by grape variety? Chardonnay, > Cabernet, Shiraz, Pinot Noir, Merlot (cough, cough), Zinfandel are > established as recognized 'brands', no matter where they are made. So? One more reason to drop this outrageous habit of abusing the name of a territory to brand wine produce outside of it. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
filippo wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 20:39, der-pizzameister > > wrote: >> At any rate I love the Chianti region both "the one you mean" and >> the "extended one". And would like to see your parts in the province of >> Siena not affected by the urban development that ruined some parts in the >> province of Florence. Good luck. > > That is also the point! As long as the Chianti could remained confined > to the real thing, no doubt whatsoever could arise about its > socioeconomic "mission": it is a rural area whose landscape-related > and touristic peculiarities are undeniable. Not so if we included the > mixed industrial areas of the NW and W part of the Chianti Classico > production area. Only a crystal clear relation with its history and > origin can guarantee the possibility of an environmental and landscape > protection of that area. No, I disagree here. I would say that it is a sort of simplification to account too many things to your neighbours in Barberino being part of the Chianti area. And also that perspective can lead to the risk of evading responsabilities. It is just too easy to say: "if were the only Chianti we would have a better territory". I have serious doubts that hypothetical status would have prevented the occurence of certain little disast&#. Take that horrific thing in the historical centre of Castellina. That "mill" probably dates earlier than most of the industrial development in the W - NW areas you referred to. And also consider the future development of the Pianella industrial district in Gaiole. Not to mention the 10^3 new apartments :-/ which have just been built in the historical centre of... you know where. These episodes are primarily the outcome of choices made by the local town councils and economic interests internal to your municipalities. Is there a strong link between all that and you not being recognized as the only Chianti? Is there the influence of the bad Tavarnelle guys "stealing" the Chianti brand from you? May be there is. As well as I would not say that Pluto gravity force on Earth surface is zero ;-) In other words I would not see the Chianti term all in your hands as a magic wand *even* for envinronmental issues. Daniele |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
filippo wrote:
> We could also pursue the road of DeCo (municipal council > denominations). I do not know much about that, just read a couple of articles. Anyway that could be interesting. > it is not so unlikely that we may have a chance of > hitting at least the outer circle of it (getting the Tuscany-wide > "Chianti" denomination stop to exist, Well, we can't deny that the Gaiole based "Chianti Liberation Front" has an ambitious plan. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
Michael Pronay wrote:
> "filippo" > wrote: > >> If the Chianti area only was entitled to this name, then we >> could easily have a Classico (meaning a typical blend of >> sangiovese and other local varieties) and a modern one (meaning >> the blend of whatever so called "international" grape varieties >> one believe it to be suitable), with much better clarity for >> everybody and respect for the truth. > > Sorry to contradict you in in one point: The Chianti formula was a > 19th century invention by Barone Ricasoli. The inclusion of white > grapes in the formula certainly was *not* meant to provide the > wine with the utmost quality possible. I may be dumb, but I can hardly see the contradiction, here;-) Anyway: wine from Chianti used to be very reknown in Tuscany and beyond, long before Bettino Ricasoli invented that formula. His contribution was to study the issue and devise a formula which first of all reversed the proportion sangiovese-canaiolo. In the past canaiolo used to be the most popular grape variety to produce the "vin vermiglio" in Chianti. Then he allowed the possibility to add not simply white grapes, but malvasia white grapes, and anyway he was very clear in arguing that this was not recommended for high quality wine. It was just a way to "estinguish" the sangiovese in case the season produced very strong vintages. The real problem came in 20th century, in its second half in particular, when trebbiano grape variety became popular, and quantity rather than quality was the aim. We all know what a poor and dull grape variety can be trebbiano particularly when allowed to overcrop, as it certainly was the case during the 50s and 60s of the 20th century. So, if we are to give Bettino Ricasoli the credit he deserves, historically, this concerns his "discovery" of sangiovese as the main guy to give control of the thing. Its regulation of "up to about 15%" (later stupidly fixed in "15%" no more no less) of white grapes needs to be compared with the habit of throwing whatever white grapes were available, until his time, and possibly even in higher proportions. Nowadays, anyway, "traditional" Chianti wine would mean a wine made from sangiovese (at least 75%) and _possibly_ canaiolo (and maybe a tiny proportion of white malvasia), by this meaning that 100% sangiovese would still be considered traditional. The point, now, concerns the presence of "international" grape varieties (cab, merlot, syrah..). That is another reason I consider the name Chianti rather useless to identify wine: you can find instances of Chianti (and even of Chianti Classico) pretty variable from the above point of view. And at the same time you can have real champions of "traditional" way to make wine out of sangiovese, of outstanding quality (and maybe even coming from deep inside the Chianti area!) which are NOT branded as Chianti at all; to name just four of them: Pergole Torte of Montevertine, Fontalloro of Felsina, Flaccianello della Pieve of Fontodi, Percarlo of San Giusto a Rentennano... all of them coming from Chianti, all of them made out of pure sangiovese, all of them branded as IGT Toscana (one as IGT Colli della Toscana Centrale) |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
filippo wrote:
> Nowadays, anyway, "traditional" Chianti wine would mean a wine made from > sangiovese (at least 75%) and _possibly_ canaiolo (and maybe a tiny > proportion of white malvasia), by this meaning that 100% sangiovese > would still be considered traditional. With the recently revised Chianti Classico regulations has not the minimal percentage of sangiovese risen to 80%? I also knew that starting from vintage 2006 white varieties are no more allowed. Daniele |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister wrote:
> filippo wrote: > >> Nowadays, anyway, "traditional" Chianti wine would mean a wine made from >> sangiovese (at least 75%) and _possibly_ canaiolo (and maybe a tiny >> proportion of white malvasia), by this meaning that 100% sangiovese >> would still be considered traditional. > > With the recently revised Chianti Classico regulations has not the minimal > percentage of sangiovese risen to 80%? I also knew that starting from > vintage 2006 white varieties are no more allowed. ....and international varieties are allowed. That's right. And sure enough, I was saying a "traditional" Chianti wine. Never mind the regulations ;-) It may well be called IGT.... |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
filippo wrote:
> der-pizzameister wrote: >> With the recently revised Chianti Classico regulations has not the >> minimal percentage of sangiovese risen to 80%? I also knew that starting >> from vintage 2006 white varieties are no more allowed. > > ...and international varieties are allowed. That's right. About international varieties and sangiovese: it was a surprise when -at a local wine festival- I was replied that the Giorgio I (Fattoria La Massa, Panzano in Chianti) bottles were without the traditional black rooster label because they decided to leave the Chianti Classico DOCG. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
On Mar 13, 3:00 pm, filippo > wrote:
> UC wrote: > > > Don't you realize that many, if not most new wine drinkers, as well as > > many older ones, are buying wine by grape variety? Chardonnay, > > Cabernet, Shiraz, Pinot Noir, Merlot (cough, cough), Zinfandel are > > established as recognized 'brands', no matter where they are made. > > So? > One more reason to drop this outrageous habit of abusing the name of a > territory to brand wine produce outside of it. Huh???? Perhaps you didn't get it the first time: MOST PEOPLE DON'T BUY WINE BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA, BUT BY GRAPE VARIETY. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
On Mar 13, 3:29 pm, filippo > wrote:
> Michael Pronay wrote: > > "filippo" > wrote: > > >> If the Chianti area only was entitled to this name, then we > >> could easily have a Classico (meaning a typical blend of > >> sangiovese and other local varieties) and a modern one (meaning > >> the blend of whatever so called "international" grape varieties > >> one believe it to be suitable), with much better clarity for > >> everybody and respect for the truth. > > > Sorry to contradict you in in one point: The Chianti formula was a > > 19th century invention by Barone Ricasoli. The inclusion of white > > grapes in the formula certainly was *not* meant to provide the > > wine with the utmost quality possible. > > I may be dumb, but I can hardly see the contradiction, here;-) > Anyway: wine from Chianti used to be very reknown in Tuscany and beyond, > long before Bettino Ricasoli invented that formula. His contribution was > to study the issue and devise a formula which first of all reversed the > proportion sangiovese-canaiolo. In the past canaiolo used to be the most > popular grape variety to produce the "vin vermiglio" in Chianti. > Then he allowed the possibility to add not simply white grapes, but > malvasia white grapes, and anyway he was very clear in arguing that this > was not recommended for high quality wine. It was just a way to > "estinguish" the sangiovese in case the season produced very strong > vintages. The real problem came in 20th century, in its second half in > particular, when trebbiano grape variety became popular, and quantity > rather than quality was the aim. We all know what a poor and dull grape > variety can be trebbiano particularly when allowed to overcrop, as it > certainly was the case during the 50s and 60s of the 20th century. > So, if we are to give Bettino Ricasoli the credit he deserves, > historically, this concerns his "discovery" of sangiovese as the main > guy to give control of the thing. Its regulation of "up to about 15%" > (later stupidly fixed in "15%" no more no less) of white grapes needs to > be compared with the habit of throwing whatever white grapes were > available, until his time, and possibly even in higher proportions. > > Nowadays, anyway, "traditional" Chianti wine would mean a wine made from > sangiovese (at least 75%) and _possibly_ canaiolo (and maybe a tiny > proportion of white malvasia), by this meaning that 100% sangiovese > would still be considered traditional. > The point, now, concerns the presence of "international" grape varieties > (cab, merlot, syrah..). > That is another reason I consider the name Chianti rather useless to > identify wine: you can find instances of Chianti (and even of Chianti > Classico) pretty variable from the above point of view. And at the same > time you can have real champions of "traditional" way to make wine out > of sangiovese, of outstanding quality (and maybe even coming from deep > inside the Chianti area!) which are NOT branded as Chianti at all; > to name just four of them: Pergole Torte of Montevertine, Fontalloro of > Felsina, Flaccianello della Pieve of Fontodi, Percarlo of San Giusto a > Rentennano... all of them coming from Chianti, all of them made out of > pure sangiovese, all of them branded as IGT Toscana (one as IGT Colli > della Toscana Centrale) I find Vino Nobile a better wine, typically, than Chianti Classico. This is a reversal from the way it used to be. The only Chianti I find appealing is Rufina. Then there's Morellino di Scansano... |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister wrote:
> filippo wrote: > >> On 11 Mar, 20:39, der-pizzameister > >> wrote: > >>> At any rate I love the Chianti region both "the one you mean" and >>> the "extended one". And would like to see your parts in the province of >>> Siena not affected by the urban development that ruined some parts in the >>> province of Florence. Good luck. >> That is also the point! As long as the Chianti could remained confined >> to the real thing, no doubt whatsoever could arise about its >> socioeconomic "mission": it is a rural area whose landscape-related >> and touristic peculiarities are undeniable. Not so if we included the >> mixed industrial areas of the NW and W part of the Chianti Classico >> production area. Only a crystal clear relation with its history and >> origin can guarantee the possibility of an environmental and landscape >> protection of that area. > > No, I disagree here. I would say that it is a sort of simplification to > account too many things to your neighbours in Barberino being part of the > Chianti area. And also that perspective can lead to the risk of > evading responsabilities. It is just too easy to say: "if were the only > Chianti we would have a better territory". I have serious doubts that > hypothetical status would have prevented the occurence of certain little > disast&#. The we must not evade our responsibilities is far too right. I am not saying that the culprit of environmental disasters lies in Val d'Elsa or lower Val di Pesa.... I am saying that it would be easier for us to fight for the defense of landscape and environmental integrity if the territory of Chianti was limited to Chianti, whose economic aim is more clearly rural and touristic than the industrial districts of SanCasciano, Barberino, Tavarnelle, Poggibonsi etc.. > > > Take that horrific thing in the historical centre of Castellina. That > "mill" probably dates earlier than most of the industrial development in the > W - NW areas you referred to. You are right, but note: because that horrific thing has been the single reason why Castellina did not get the Orange flag by Touring Club (and more than once), differently from what happened to Radda and Gaiole, maybe now we are nearly there at getting that monster down! They eventually realised that it was not worth the price... > And also consider the future development of > the Pianella industrial district in Gaiole. And not by chance it is strongly adversed, and it is not so obvious that it will be built. The opposite is true. If there is a chance of avoiding that outrage, that resides in the plain of Arbia being right at the feet of a line of castles and churces belonging to the most ancient history of Chianti. > Not to mention the 10^3 new > apartments :-/ which have just been built in the historical centre of... you > know where. Maybe I know where.. but please go on. Do spell the name of that village, and of its municipality. > These episodes are primarily the outcome of choices made by the > local town councils and economic interests internal to your municipalities. I am not saying that in the three municipalities of the historical Chianti there is no environment mismanagement. Not at all. I know there is. And by the way the municipality of Gaiole has a grim record on this respect. But now things are going to improve, I have reasons to believe. By the way, the building of new huge wineries is one of the reasons of pressure against the environment. Do not tell me :-/ I had to suffer more than just an outrageous project being built right in front of me. And what shall we say about the other real monster which is the management of the Montegrossi quarry? Fortunately the thing has just come out and is being discussed right now. Maybe they managed to stop it. > Is there a strong link between all that and you not being recognized as the > only Chianti? Is there the influence of the bad Tavarnelle guys "stealing" > the Chianti brand from you? May be there is. As well as I would not say > that Pluto gravity force on Earth surface is zero ;-) > > In other words I would not see the Chianti term all in your hands as a magic > wand *even* for envinronmental issues. I am just saying that if we do not severe the nominal link between a purely rural, agricultural-touristic area like Chianti and the industrial or semi-industrial districts of the lower plains, or the area next to Florence, then it will become more and more difficult to fight this defensive battle. Even more difficult that it has been so far or is being right now. The Chianti Classico consortium is now backing a sinister approach brought forward by the "8 mayors" (headed by the Tavarnelle one), in favour of a demise of the culture of constraints imposed by landscape criteria ("superiamo la cultura dei vincoli.."). They want to get to a co-decision approach, i.e. to an acceptance of those constraints by the local businesses. That would mean the actual looting of what remeains of that fragile environment. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
UC wrote:
> On Mar 13, 3:00 pm, filippo > wrote: >> UC wrote: >> >>> Don't you realize that many, if not most new wine drinkers, as well as >>> many older ones, are buying wine by grape variety? Chardonnay, >>> Cabernet, Shiraz, Pinot Noir, Merlot (cough, cough), Zinfandel are >>> established as recognized 'brands', no matter where they are made. >> So? >> One more reason to drop this outrageous habit of abusing the name of a >> territory to brand wine produce outside of it. > > > > Huh???? Perhaps you didn't get it the first time: > > MOST PEOPLE DON'T BUY WINE BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA, BUT BY GRAPE VARIETY. I can hear you, mate. I repeat: so, what? What you are saying is one more reason to drop the despicable habit of abusing the name of a geographic area for the sake of selling wine. After all, as you show me, people do not buy wine by geography but by grape. So, could they stop selling their bloody wine as Chianti, please. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
der-pizzameister > wrote:
> About international varieties and sangiovese: it was a surprise > when -at a local wine festival- I was replied that the Giorgio I > (Fattoria La Massa, Panzano in Chianti) bottles were without the > traditional black rooster label because they decided to leave > the Chianti Classico DOCG. I guess Giampaolo Motta has left the *Consorzio* Chianti Classico (true, I haven't seen him at the Anteprima for a few years now) - or did he change Giorgio primo from Chianto Classico DOCG to Toscana IGT? M. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
Michael Pronay wrote:
> I guess Giampaolo Motta has left the *Consorzio* Chianti Classico > (true, I haven't seen him at the Anteprima for a few years now) - > or did he change Giorgio primo from Chianto Classico DOCG to > Toscana IGT? > > M. I knew that they left the DOCG, and starting from vintage 2003 Giorgio Primo is bottled as Toscana IGT. |
Posted to alt.food.wine
|
|||
|
|||
'Chianti' Riserva?
On 14 Mar, 07:30, Michael Pronay > wrote:
> der-pizzameister > wrote: > > About international varieties and sangiovese: it was a surprise > > when -at a local wine festival- I was replied that the Giorgio I > > (Fattoria La Massa, Panzano in Chianti) bottles were without the > > traditional black rooster label because they decided to leave > > the Chianti Classico DOCG. > > I guess Giampaolo Motta has left the *Consorzio* Chianti Classico > (true, I haven't seen him at the Anteprima for a few years now) - > or did he change Giorgio primo from Chianto Classico DOCG to > Toscana IGT? So, Michael, were you at the Anteprima this year? Shame there was no chance to meet and chat. I think that it would be nice if usenetizens made themselves recognisable in events like these. Maybe next year, who knows?, the Consortium will allow a small meet.ing.poi.nt to be arranged.. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
1995 Selvapiana Bucerchiale Chianti Rufina Riserva | Wine | |||
Ruffino Riserva Ducale Chianti 1955 | Wine | |||
TN Chianti Riserva Ducale 1959, Ruffino | Wine | |||
1982 Riserva San Polo Chianti Classico? | Wine | |||
TN Ruffino Riserva Ducale Chianti 1955 | Wine |